1) Do you think that the UN can provide answers to the issue of terrorism? Which do you consider as the shortcomings
and advantages of its framework?
- The United Nations is an intergovernmental organization which is very complex in structure and where the same rules do not apply in different bodies. In the case of terrorism, for instance, the logic is quite different in the Security Council than in the General Assembly or the Human Rights Council. The adoption of a comprehensive Global Strategy against terrorism by the General Assembly in 2006 and the operation of an inter-agency coordination body, the Counter-Terrorism Task Force, are promising signs.
2) You act under your capacity as a UN Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms while Countering Terrorism. Which do you consider as the major challenges to human rights in fighting terrorism?
- Many human rights have come under attack in the post-9/11 world, so that even the absolute prohibition against torture has been compromised by many states. Still, in my view the main challenge is in the insistence of many states to define terrorism on their own, and to use the notion of terrorism to stigmatize domestic opposition on false grounds. As such approaches are counter-productive and will harm an effective campaign against real terrorism, I am fairly optimistic that the United Nations will gradually be able to curtail the opportunistic abuse of the notion of terrorism for political purposes.
3) Does the international legal regime need amendments to better protect individuals from terrorism (or would consistent and faithful implementation suffice)?
- There is a fairly comprehensive network of international treaties on various forms of terrorist crimes but still no agreed comprehensive definition of terrorism. As a consequence, some specific forms of terrorism may still fall outside the scope of international counter-terrorism conventions. Despite this, such acts would almost universally be defined as serious ordinary crimes by nation states, so the problem is not a major one.
4) Which terrorism “root-causes” are, to your opinion, the most significant (and why)?
- The UN Global Strategy, in my view rightly, speaks about 'conditions conducive' to the spread of terrorism, rather than 'root causes', the latter expression suggesting strict causality. When discussing what factors may correlate with the emergence of terrorism, it is in my view useful to distinguish between structural causes, such as huge differences in wealth coupled with political exclusion, facilitating causes, such as the availability of weapons, explosives and money in the hands of those who want to utilize a situation to build a terrorist network, and triggering causes which may relate to individual experiences of humiliation or great injustice such as the torture of a relative or abusive behaviour by the military.
5) Do you think terrorism is a phenomenon linked only to non-State actors? Is there such a concept as “state terrorism” for you?
- To me, terrorism is about resorting to morally inexcusable tactics, irrespective of the actor or the goal. Whoever targets innocent bystanders for deadly or otherwise serious violence in the furtherance of a political cause is a terrorist, irrespective whether the actor is private or public in nature.
6) On 10 March 2009 you presented a report to the HRC regarding the role of intelligence agencies and their oversight bodies in the fight against terrorism. How can States’ role as guarantors of human rights be reconciled with uncontrollable agencies/entities of this kind?
- Under international law, a state is responsible for the acts of all of its organs and authorities. Mere considerations of rule of law require that this principle translates also into domestic law, so that no one is above the law and everyone is accountable. Besides, human rights law requires that whenever there has been a human rights violation, the state is under an obligation to provide an effective and enforceable remedy to the victims of that violation.
7) In a recent interview of yours in Washington Post you stated: “We have had a witch hunt for alleged terrorists for the past 7 1/2 years. Now I think the witch hunt is over and it is time for the law to step in." What should one expect (from the law stepping in)?
- My intention was to dismiss the unfounded view that mechanisms of accountability would amount to a witch hunt. Quite on the contrary, there must be full transparency and respect for the right to a fair trial, including the presumption of innocence. In my view it is important that the grave violations of human rights committed in the name of a 'war' against terrorism, in the United States and elsewhere, become subject to proper investigations and, when needed, even prosecution. The political leaders who gave the actual orders for arbitrary detention and torture, the lawyers who wrapped those orders in a veil of 'lawfulness' and the intelligence agents who implemented the actual torture, should in my view be subject to investigation and, where appropriate, even prosecution.